Differential survival among life stages contributes to co‐dominance of <i>Abies mariesii</i> and <i>Abies veitchii</i> in a sub‐alpine old‐growth forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Questions: Are there interspecific differences in mortality and recruitment rates across life stages between two shade‐tolerant dominant trees in a sub‐alpine old‐growth forest? Do such differences in demography contribute to the coexistence and co‐dominance of the two species? Location: Sub‐alpine, old‐growth forest on Mt. Ontake, central Honshu, Japan. Methods: From 1980 to 2005, we recorded DBH and status (alive or dead) of all Abies mariesii and A. veitchii individuals (DBH ≥ 5 cm) in a 0.44‐ha plot. Based on this 25 year census, we quantified mortality and recruitment rates of the two species in three life stages (small tree, 5 cm ≤ DBH < 10 cm; subcanopy tree, 10 cm ≤ DBH < 20 cm; canopy tree, DBH ≥ 20 cm). Results: Significant interspecific differences in mortality and recruitment rates were observed in both the small tree and sub‐canopy tree stages. In this forest, saplings (< 5 cm DBH) are mostly buried by snow‐pack during winter. As a consequence, saplings of A. mariesii , which is snow and shade tolerant, show higher rates of recruitment into the small tree stage than do those of A. veitchii . Above the snow‐pack, trees must tolerate dry, cold temperatures. A. veitchii , which can more readily endure such climate conditions, showed lower mortality rate at the subcanopy stage and a higher recruitment rate into the canopy tree stage. This differential mortality and recruitment among life‐stages determines relative dominance of the two species in the canopy. Conclusion: Differential growth conditions along a vertical gradient in this old forest determine survival of the two species prior to reaching the canopy, and consequently allow co‐dominance at the canopy stage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".